CD-1 Rezoning: 10 East 11th Avenue

Statement Watch

My name is Stephen Lurch. I'm a Vancouver resident living directly across Ontario from the proposed development. I oppose the proposed recommendations. I'm trying to figure out who wants this building. It certainly isn't the residents of the apartment that will have to be torn down and who will be kicked out of their apartments. Yes, there is some distant promise of providing a space when the building goes up, but in the meantime, they have to find somewhere else to live in the city that has an extremely low vacancy rate and high rents. The Broadway plan states that its goals are to provide people with affordable housing and to deal with the low vacancy rate. But by putting this building here, you're increasing the problem by putting people out. So who wants this? I understand that the developer and the property owner want to make a pile of money. Maybe city council is bound by the Broadway plan, although the optics of having people pushed out of their living homes nine months before an election is pretty bad. It's definitely not in the interest of any of the residents living in the buildings nearby. We already have to deal with inadequate parking and heavy traffic. If you add 115 new suites to an area already at capacity, how will people be able to get around safely? This area is constantly choked with traffic. Often it is difficult to get onto Ontario from 12th or onto 12th from Ontario. Also, driving along 11th is challenging because 11th is essentially a single-lane road when parking is full, which it always is. Often people have to back their car up the whole length of the block to allow a car to pass. There's simply no way the area can handle 150 new units worth of people and their cars. Cycling. Ontario is one of the busiest bike routes in Vancouver. Sitting on a porch during busy times, we can watch cyclists constantly streaming up and down the road. As it gets busier during the day, inevitably cars start getting into dangerous conflicts with cyclists. Often stop signs are ignored by cars, cars stop unexpectedly or are trying to park, and people pull out of the alleys without looking. We see plenty of accidents and close calls. As it stands, there are too many cars. Adding 115 units to the area will make it much more dangerous for cyclists. Parking. If the condo doesn't provide adequate residence and visitor parking, it will spill over to the surrounding streets. I hope they do. But even if they do, very often there's not enough guest parking and then people have to find parking somewhere else. So that ends up being up on the street. There isn't a minute that a parking spot is free on that area. Basically, we sit there and we watch. We can time it. We'll see a car pull out and within a minute another car is pulled in. So there's no parking. So I've seen people getting yelling matches on the street over parking spots. People have parked in front of my driveway, and then I have to ask the city to tow a car. Good job, City of Vancouver. It takes 35 minutes. So the building plan has room for commercial space on the ground floor, which really surprised me when I read it. Why would you put commercial space in the middle of a neighborhood? It just doesn't fit. And again, this would further compound the above-mentioned traffic and parking issues. Imagine having a Tim Hortons or a Starbucks or a business that attracts people and vehicles. Well, how would they get in safely with their cars and residents while residents are also trying to drive in? Where would they park? Schools. Our local schools don't have the capacity to handle the influx of people in the area. Simon Fraser, the catchment school, is currently at 179% capacity, having 162 more students than they can handle. And finally, my own concerns about safety. I have a two-year-old daughter and a cat, and we like to walk around the neighborhood and we cycle commute to daycare and work. My daughter plays in the front yard. Sometimes she scoots down the sidewalk or alley. We walk down the alley to access our backyard multiple times a day. Many families have children that play in the alley between 11th and 12th. Having those extra units in place will definitely increase traffic everywhere and around, and thus the danger. Construction will make living in our area more dangerous with people cutting through the alley between 11th and 12th to get around blocked roads, large semi-trucks, dump trucks, construction workers, and contractors. driving and parking everywhere in an area where the streets are not wide enough to accommodate them. I don't trust that any construction company is going to 100% follow the safety rules. Case in point, just recently, Yuridia Flores was tragically killed by a crane overhead while working at the Oak Ridge Park construction site. I know there will certainly be a crane over our house and the surrounding streets and sidewalks while this unit goes up. The Broadway plan is meant to make the area an attractive place to live and work. How will this improve our neighborhood? It will make the traffic and parking unbearable. The construction phase and increasing traffic will be dangerous for residents, and you'll have to displace people, my neighbors, in order to push the project through. Thank you for listening.

Statement Watch

I just discovered that I have three of my fellow tenants here. I was wondering if I can go a little longer than five minutes because of that. I won't need to go eight, that's for sure. Is that possible?

As long as they're here.

One, two, three in the corner here.

If I can please get you to state your name, record, and residence.

Go ahead.

Please.

Thank you. Yeah, you do have up to eight minutes. Okay.

I also have a couple of cues for videos and two photos, which I'll verbally cue. Awesome. Thank you. Four years ago, I appeared on the front page of The Province. Headline was, Renters on Edge. as the previous council was preparing to vote on approving the Broadway plan, including enhanced renter protections. Everything I said in that Danfamano piece came true, unlike the main message from developers and landlord BC, who all warned that enhanced renter protections would mean no one would build a thing. How did that work out? I'm strongly opposed to this rezoning for the potential renovation of 20 families living in this healthy and well-maintained building where I live. At the corner of Ontario and 11th, two narrow residential streets already stressed by traffic and severely stressed by limited street parking. This is the neighborhood I've lived, volunteered, and worked in for over 20 years. Vancouver citizens and councillors looking at the city's rezoning application website, and please play the video now, see a video rendering of this location that would be laughable if it wasn't so misleading. depicting the intersection and surrounding blocks as virtually empty and without cars choking residential streets. Now you can show the photos, please. No photos or videos of the reality of the neighborhood. Putting 115 units on a small 100-foot lot on this block does not fit. Everyone I show this to says the building belongs on Broadway, not narrow and already stressed side streets. And you can lose the photos. Thank you. However, while that's understandably the primary concern for people in my neighborhood, we tenants have another concern. Why does this proposal with 115 units continue to have zero one-bedroom apartments? Zero. Instead, 74 studios. This issue was raised during the question and comments period in May 2025, but curiously, it is not mentioned in the reasons for opposition in the referral report that you are voting on. The applicant now mentions their solutions. Why wasn't this taken care of before it got to a public hearing? We are threatened with renovation from our apartment homes. Almost all are one-bedroom apartments between 600 and 700 square feet. Existing tenants, considering their options under the tenant relocation plan, are left to wonder if this is a design strategy to dissuade tenants from returning to the new building if all were being offered is 400-square-foot studio apartments. Understanding, I just heard somebody say there might be a solution. Might be. I say a design strategy because if you do the math, relocating tenants, topping up their relocation rents for three years if they can find a place, and then bringing them back at the same rent is exponentially more costly than handing tenants a buyout check to get rid of us. You can show the email now, please. When I raised the zero one bedroom concern to the city last year, I did receive a thoughtful response from the city. Staff will be reviewing the proposed unit mix in the new building and unit types in the existing building. If there are potential gaps in the applicant addressing their right of first refusal obligations, staff will work with the applicant to ensure eligible tenants are offered a new below market rental unit appropriate to their household. Therefore, there will need to be enough one-bedroom units to accommodate returning tenants. Again, I do not see this requirement or the one-bedroom concern specifically noted in the referral report that you are voting on, which doesn't seem fair to you or us. Another issue I raised almost immediately with the city when we were notified of the rezoning proposal, the city deemed the original proposal noncompliant with the Broadway plan due to a previous application for towers on East 12th. That's the same block. The rules at the time limited the number of towers per block. At the time, neither the applicant nor the city seemed too concerned with this noncompliance aspect, and that was definitely noted by tenants. Subsequent legislation removed that restriction, pretty much all restrictions, and it left a very sour taste in our mouths that the developer possibly had assurances that this noncompliance issue was either a temporary problem or would be waived. In conclusion, many renters feel like disposable ponds in a sweeping wave of rezonings and displacements due to what the Broadway plan has evolved into. We feel like the playing field is tilted in favor of the developers. Existing tenants also noted that the 20% below market rental requirement could potentially just be us returning to the building, meaning in effect there would be potentially no additional affordable housing in this proposal. Renters are indeed voters. making up half of the city's population. Council cannot be blind to this growing dissatisfaction of voters becoming collateral damage in the drive for profit. It's not too late to slow this down or cancel this one as the election approaches. Thank you very much.

Statement Watch

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I want to acknowledge up front that I'm actually a property owner at 47 West 12th, which is just around the corner from this development. But I am actually opposed to this development because of actually in all the points that were just brought up, I've sort of listed the same ones. I'm actually not opposed to development in the city of Vancouver, and there's lots of big buildings going up along Broadway and elsewhere, and I'm okay with that. And I'm not opposed to rental properties especially. But parking is an absolute nightmare in my neighbourhood. I have tenants there, and although I have a couple of parking spots, it's impossible for any of them or their friends to find parking. I need my glass to read my own writing. Oh, yeah. We do not need any commercial space in our neighborhood. It's just ridiculous to start putting any kind of commercial there. In addition to the fact that we don't need it, there's lots of commercial on Main Street and, of course, Broadway, and it will just add to the parking nightmare. As the previous fellow mentioned, there is not a single spot available any time there. Also, I have a question. On the proposal, I don't see any parking listed in the information I've been provided with. So is there parking stalls planned for this development, and how many? Is that reasonable to ask questions at this meeting?

The protocol is we don't take questions. The council can ask questions after you speak, though, of you.

Okay. And my last point also mirrors what the previous fellow was saying. I just don't understand why these developers are tearing down the three-story apartment buildings that are all around the Mount Pleasant area. Most of them look like they're in pretty good condition, and it's ridiculous. There's lots of places on 12th, Broadway. Main Street, everywhere that they could be building these places. Why tear down three-bedroom apartments and displace people? It's not going to affect me personally, but I just don't understand that. It makes no sense to me. So those are the main points I wanted to make. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Ruth Cherry, and I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver since 1985. I live in the area, and I am opposed to the amendments to the rezoning application for 10 East 11th Avenue. So the Vancouver real estate market in 2026... is experiencing a significant record high accumulation of unsold newly completed housing units with estimates suggesting from 5,000 to 5,400 of unsold new units in this region. This figure does not include the shadow inventory. which is an unsold supply held by developers and thus is not listed on the MLS. As of early 2026, Metro Vancouver has approximately 12,000 to 15,000 unsold new pre-construction condo units sitting in developer hands, and that is the shadow inventory. The figure is according to Steve Saratsky, who is citing data from the Altus Group and reports from Rennie and Associates Realty Limited. So imagine the numbers that will be in this category once these buildings along the Broadway corridor in our neighborhoods are most likely approved. In other words, these tall towers do not need to be built, especially not in neighborhoods such as the one in 10 East 11th. And once there is a glut on the market, developers will pressure the various levels of government to open the door up even more to foreign investment and foreign buyers, because frankly, they're the only ones that can afford it. It cannot be seen in any other way. 500 buildings along the Broadway corridor in 30 years. It's a very unfathomable scenario. So the unique character of this neighborhood is being replaced by huge buildings that don't contribute anything to the character of this locality, but instead degrade it. The suites and the proposed high rises are cramped. They're expensive, constructed with environmentally unfriendly materials, contributing to additional landfill as demolished buildings will have to be dumped there, and do not, in truth, address the shortage of truly affordable homes. The interests of people who live here are not considered before those of developers, whose mandate it is to make money and then disperse, going to their next money-making project. In addition, it is incomprehensible why global developers should have a preference for people who live here. The profits leave the city and go abroad. People who live here want homes, not investment properties, built for living in and with protective safeguards for truly reasonable rents and livable floor space. Developers and construction companies aim to make money, not enhance the city of Vancouver, nor contribute to making anything nearly livable. They don't care. It's not in their mandate. Vancouver is losing its city as the status of a livable city, and therefore I ask that the council stop this and any other further rezonings. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you. My name is Louis Villegas. I am a Vancouver resident practicing urbanism in the U.S. and Canada for 40 years. Next slide, please. I oppose this proposal and oppose towers in the neighborhoods generally for the unwanted consequences and the knock-on effects that they bring. Next. Why government insists on operating inside the density fallacy is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The facts show that towers inflate land values, perpetuating the government-made housing crisis. Perhaps this is the key. Captured by industry, government is fixated in maximizing private profits in order to direct revenues into the pipeline.

Next.

I will show 20% below market. Under these market conditions, falls 1,380% short of the affordability target. Next. Housing in 2026 is predicted to rise to levels 14 times over what it was in 1986. That year, the year of Expo, the commissioning of SkyTrain, house prices were at par with affordability. subtracting the government's 20% from the 1,400%, or 14 times over. House price inflation, we arrive at 1,380% house inflation. Unfortunately, rounding up, we arrive right back at 14 times over affordability, rendering the 20% offer from government virtually irrelevant. Next slide, please. And this is not the only place where government is falling short. This week, we highlighted government's inability to preserve pristine, one of our most revered natural landscapes. Next slide, please. You're throwing it all away just to sell density and height. A good developer, and we have them in Vancouver, can make just as much profit at four stories as they can at 24. It just means that they have to get more sites, which would be fine because they would be bought at stable prices. rather than the artificially inflated madness that we confront today. Next slide, please. The staff report sees a significant change in the neighborhoods. Let me tell you, there's nothing significant about selling density and height, displacing renters, shadowing streets, blocking the sky. And yes, we have proof blocking the view of the mountains. Next. Numbers don't lie, but some governments do. Here is irrefutable proof that a government-made crisis that is tearing our community apart for a quarter century has no end in sight. Housing prices up 14 times, medium household incomes dipping slightly since 1986 once they were adjusted to $20, $25. Next slide, please. Winders keep government from understanding that the zombie SkyTrain and tower plans are gutting the local economy. When housing costs double, money left to circulate is cut in half. Shops close and jobs go begging, because in Canada, mom-and-pop small businesses are the backbone of employment. Just one more thing. We saw earlier that housing costs haven't doubled, but rather risen fourfold. leaving just one quarter of household income free to circulate in the local economy. Next slide, please. Then there are the other insults to be found in the Skytrain and Tower plans. I already mentioned unit shrinkage. Next. Land lift has triggered land price inflation to levels of 1,400%. Next. The right way to end the housing crisis is to build in four-story vernacular made from the value-added forestry products. I've calculated we can double the Vancouver population by building no higher than four stories. That leaves a downtown for global real estate market to fashion the tower trade. Next. The government keeps permitting towers next to cottages and three-story walk-ups, adding fuel to the crisis rather than taking decisive action to end it.

Next, please.

Voters face a clear choice in October. Throw bad government out and elect a government that will end the housing crisis. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hello. Hello, please go ahead.

Hello. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city Councillors. Thank you for your attention and service. My name is Simina Toma, and I live at 10 East 11th Avenue. In regards to this development, I am opposed. I have lived in this building for the past 11 years in a one-bedroom apartment, and I love it. I want to raise several concerns about this proposed development, many that have been already spoken to, and specifically around the lack of one-bedroom apartments, affordable housing, parking and traffic, and the inclusion of commercial space in this neighborhood. In regards to the one bedrooms, as it stood and has been for the last two years since this proposal has been created, the one bedroom households that currently contained one single occupant would have been offered a studio. The one bedroom households that contain a couple would have been offered a two bedroom apartment. For the families that are currently residing in two bedroom apartments, they would have been offered three bedroom apartments. So that would leave us with the conclusion that without the comment being made today by the architect regarding one bedroom apartments, single occupants living in one bedroom apartments would have to downgrade to studios. And let it be noted that these studios are up to 40% smaller than our current unit. And yet those who are living together as couples or families would be awarded one extra bedroom than they are currently renting. HC National Occupancy Standard, which is currently referenced in the Borough Gateway Plan, states that it must not be used as a reason to discriminate. However, the plan development, as it currently stands, is being used to discriminate based on marital or family status. This is based on the Canadian Human Rights Act. Secondly, regarding affordable housing. The Broadway plan requires 20% of residential floor space to be allocated to the low market rental units. This project claims to meet that requirement. However, in reality, 18 of those 20 units in our current building are eligible for the right of first refusal. That means that if all existing tenants return, there are actually only two units available to the broader community as affordable housing. So this project does not meaningfully contribute affordable housing to our neighborhood. It simply maintains, if not worsens, what already is happening in our city. On top of that, the numbers don't fully add up. This proposal does not meet the square footage required for 20% below market residential square footage. By looking in their application booklet, it is actually short by 190 square feet. This raises concerns about accountability and adherence to the policy. Next, I would like to talk about parking and traffic. The application proposes 36 off-street parking spaces in total, including visitor parking. That leaves 30 residential parking spaces for 115 units. As has been discussed, this is completely insufficient for this neighborhood. Our streets are narrow, congested, and unlike downtown, it only allows for one car to pass at a time. Parking spillover will be unavailable and it will significantly increase frustration, safety risk and congestion. This is especially concerning because 11th Avenue is a major bike route and many of us from our windows have witnessed road rage incidents and bike accidents on a regular basis. Adding more vehicles, loading activity and traffic from this development will only increase the likelihood of serious incidents. Finally, commercial space. This proposal includes ground floor commercial space for a cafe or shop or a small grocer. This is a quiet residential neighborhood, Main Street, two blocks away. It already offers all these services and already has many vacant commercial spaces for that. There's no shortage of that. Adding this type of space will only increase traffic, deliveries, noise, congestion, which is no benefit for the small, quiet community that we have. So when we look at the proposal, as a whole it becomes very clear that this is not a community focused development it is a highly profit driven project that places the burden of its impact on existing residents and the neighborhood please consider this in your decision regarding this development i appreciate your time and consideration great thank you samina um speaker number seven marston leninska

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor.

Good evening, councillors. Thank you for your time. It's nice to come back to our wedding venue from a couple of years ago in a different context. My name is Marcin Lesinska. I live in Vancouver, and I'm a resident of 10 East 11th Avenue, and I'm speaking in opposition to the report's recommendations. With my time, I'd like to share my and my wife's perspectives as two recent additions to the growing class of rent-evicted nomads displaced by development around the new SkyTrain line. And I'd like to implore you to reconsider this application. Last year, we were rent-evicted from our previous home just off Clark Drive. We lived for nearly a decade in a small, rundown, but charming three-floor apartment building that had been bought in 2019 by someone keen to capitalize on his investment. before the details of the Broadway development plan had been announced. For several years, we waited for that announcement, hoping that we would get some of the rumored protections that we'd been hearing about. When that day came, we raced to the plan's website, we clicked on the map, and we zoomed into our block, and we found out that the boundary of the Broadway bubble had fallen directly on our street, and we were on the wrong side of it. We knew that the writing was on the wall, and so we immediately set out to find a new home. Within weeks, our building's owner gave notice to the residents that he would be doing just enough renovation to the suites to justify evicting everyone. And rather than wait out the four months that he offered, we paid double rent and moved. We thought that if we could manage to find a place that was up for rezoning within the bubble, because a lot of this was still gray area, we could still find some of those protections and stay in our neighborhood. As luck would have it, we found 10 East 11th Ave. But wouldn't you know it, the day we stopped by to sign the lease and pick up our keys, we were informed that the owners needed us to sign a waiver to waive our rights for protections under the Broadway Development Plan. And just like that, we fell through the cracks. Well, so be it. We thought at least we had a home until our next rent eviction, and then we can start it all over again. We've already fallen through the cracks, but I feel compelled to speak today in opposition to this rezoning because it seems like whether by accident, by design, or by crafty developer machinations, even those who are lucky enough to live within the Broadway bubble are being deprived of their protections. The proposed redevelopment of our home seeks to increase the unit count from 20 in a nice, well-maintained three-floor apartment building to 115. More than five times the amount of suites on an already congested street, one block away from the fire hall, a school, and a couple blocks off of Main Street, full of stores already. Also, the same developer owns the two adjacent buildings on the same block, both very similar buildings. Those are also up for rezoning. So five times as many suites with allotted parking for approximately a quarter of them on the property times three with two additional properties. That already seems like a tall task, but with at least five times as many suites, there should be plenty of room to accommodate the occupants of the 20 existing mostly one-bedroom units. Until you consider the fact, which we just received some new information that that might not be the case, that the proposed development doesn't include a single one-bedroom unit, only studios and two bedrooms. Conveniently, the applicant from the architecture firm has kind of as an afterthought said, oh, no, we'll fix that. Hope so. Now, I hate to be cynical, but it seems to me like this may not be accidental, that it may actually be a tactic to maximize the number of current residents who will not be able to downsize into a studio and take advantage of their right of first refusal. Now, I don't oppose development. I'm an electrician. I work in construction. We need more homes. Maybe that means higher density. And I'm not even against property developers making profit. I was tossing and turning last night at the prospect of speaking against our benevolent developer landlords not being able to quintuple their investment. But maybe they could settle for only quadrupling their prospective number of rental incomes and include some good faith accommodations for their current protected tenants. Or just leave the building alone. It's fine. The list of developers, their lawyers, their agents, and all of their various representatives that stand against tenants' interests in Vancouver is very long. and a list of people able to uphold the promises of the Broadway development plan to protect tenants may only be as long as the number of councillors present today. I implore you councillors to critically evaluate this rezoning application and to consider the tenants of this building before they fall through the cracks as well. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

And sorry, if I can please get you to state your name and whether or not you're a resident for the record, please.

Okay, sure. My name's Carrie Ann Wood, and I live next door. And I actually campaigned for you. And I was asked by one of my Chinese friends, and I said, oh, what does he stand for? And he said housing and making sure that Vancouver stays the same but develops also in a positive way. So I know that you are also making sure that nurses, mental health nurses and different people, and the police were protected. So, pardon me. Never done this before. So I did campaign for you, and I was happy about that, and I have my little notes here for me.

All right. Oh my. Sorry, I just have to grab one thing. Can we pause the timer, please? I wrote this earlier.

So I think that the city should focus on redeveloping vacant commercial or industrial places first and not displacing residents. from older apartment buildings that made the city what it is. There's thousands of people that come to the street to take pictures of the trees. And it really, I mean, what is more Canadian than red maple leafs? The area is already congested due to traffic from private schools, churches, and bike lanes. Parking is already very limited. Just coming here, there was basically a fight on the street with people trying to go both directions when they can't. The site is home to returning birds and local wildlife that need protection. Older architecture incorporated more green space, helping to prevent the concrete jungle look that we're now risking creating. And the Canadian red maple leaf Trees on site are a local treasure. And like I said, people come from all over to go to that street. Many shift workers live in this area. So construction noise and disruption will seriously affect their sleep and quality of life. There's lots of hospitals in the area. The diverse electric community in the neighborhood is what makes Vancouver world renowned. And this proposal threatens to erase that and the unique character of this neighborhood. So I urge the city to reject this proposal and support responsible development that protects housing, nature, and communities that make Vancouver livable. So I also had some other people text in.

Okay, pardon me, some people sounded angry. Okay.

The low-income rental market in Vancouver is characterized by extreme demand and limited supply, with options largely relying on subsidized housing and below-market rentals. Rent tied to income, maximum 30% of income. Based upon the CMHC current data, The better part of lower-income housing is at 96% capacity or better. What is the data supporting increased population density in our neighbourhood, which cannot even meet parking needs for the local, cannot be outweighed with forcing a better use of other areas? Can't this be outweighed with better use of other areas? How many people are you trying to fit into our infinite... space called our neighborhood. Who decided this? The people inhabiting the homes and the apartments refused to let this go ahead. Perhaps the system should stop serving those that want to be here and start serving those that are already here. For it is those that we are. We are the majority here, not your planned future. Perhaps the system should stop serving those that want to be here and start serving those that are living here. We are the neighborhood. We are the majority. Cut and splice. Okay, wait.

Anyway.

Vancouver faces an acute long-term affordable housing crisis with the median income families requiring over 100% of their income to cover home ownership costs. making it Canada's least affordable city. Massive supply demand gap requires 29,000. Done?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Many people are texting to me. So thank you very much. I'd really like to support you.

Statement Watch

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Luke Reynolds and I am the rezoning planner for this application considered under the Broadway Plan. Council, this application before you is accompanied with a yellow memo that notes an error in Appendix A of the Referral Report. The memo specifies that Condition 5.2 should include added wording relating to family mix requirements for both total number of units and below market units. The site, shown in red, is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East 11th Avenue and Ontario Street. The site is zoned R53, and the surrounding area consists of primarily residential uses, including single-attach and low-rise residential. The property is currently occupied by a three-story multifamily residential building with 20 rental units. Eligible tenants are protected under the Enhanced Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy. The neighborhood is undergoing significant change, with the future Mount Pleasant subway station located a five-minute walk away, which is scheduled to open in 2027. The site is located in the Mount Pleasant Center Area A, MCEA, subarea 10.9.1. The plan permits 20, sorry, market rental buildings with 20% of the residential floor area secured as below market rental units and a maximum density of 6.8 FSR with the inclusion of commercial. The site is zoned R53, which would allow for this form of development. This application was in stream when the city initiated rezoning was approved in late 2025. The applicant opted to continue with their CD1 rezoning. The applicant is proposing a 15-story residential building with 115 rental units, of which 20 are below market rental. Commercial space is also provided at grade, and a density of 6.8 FSR and a height of 44.9 are proposed. To reduce perceived massing of the development, staff have included a 16-story maximum height, which is one story higher than requested, to allow the applicant to reallocate massing and improve streetscape and pedestrian experience. During the public consultation period and two-week Q&A, which was held from May 7th to May 20th, 2025, 69 pieces of feedback were received. Support was expressed for the height, density, and massing, building design, and increased housing supply near shops, services, and transit. Concerns were relayed to the proposed commercial space, building height, and neighborhood character fit, and traffic and parking. Regarding the commercial space and building height, the proposal is consistent with the Broadway Plan and existing R53 zoning, which encourage rental housing and local serving retail off arterials. Regarding traffic and parking concerns, the application would be required to meet the requirements of the parking bylaw, and rezoning conditions require improvements to address safety for all road users, including upgraded sidewalks along Ontario Street and East 11th Avenue. The public benefits of this application consist of 115 market rental units, of which 20% of the floor area is below market rental, and DCLs of $1.1 million. In conclusion, this proposal aligns with both the Broadway plan and the existing R53 zoning. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any and all questions.

Statement Watch

Good evening, worship and council. My name is Neil Robertson. I'm managing principal, Stuart Howard Architects. I want to thank you for taking the time to review our proposal today. I know you guys have four items, so I'll try to be as brief as I can. This is a challenging project for us, partly because of the topography of the site and also the size of the site being a 100-foot frontage. FOR US, WHAT REALLY MADE THE PROJECT WORK WAS THAT IT WAS A CORNER SITE. AND WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE, WE TREATED THE BUILDING SORT OF WITH TWO FACES, RIGHT? SO ON THE NORTH SIDE, WE'VE GOT THE COMMERCIAL FACE WITH SMALL-SCALE CRUs AT GRADE THERE. We envisioned something like a neighborhood coffee shop or corner store going in there. And then the east face is the entry to the building. The parking in particular was challenging for us because the lane is so much higher. So we had to do a little bit of somersaulting to be able to get the parking to work. But working with a traffic consultant, we were able to get all of the turning radiuses to get the required parking underneath the building. We're actually quite pleased with the result of the project. We think it's a very appealing building, and we've managed to break down the massing of the façade through the use of podiums you've heard me speak about before, but also the articulation of the façade. When you're working with these really tight envelopes and setbacks and tower setbacks, it can be quite challenging to create something that doesn't just look like a tombstone sitting there. And we worked really, really hard to articulate and to express different exposures and to create a bit of variety along the facade. I think staff did a good job presenting it. I don't have much else to say except for the fact when I was reviewing the comments from the public, the written comments, I did notice a concern that came up regarding the number of one bedrooms that are in the project. This was raised to us by staff when the comments came in, and we are well aware of the fact that all the one bedroom units that are on the site right now have to be replaced one for one with one bedrooms in the ultimate development. In working with staff and talking with them, we know that we have to do development permits. So the intent is to deal with that at the development permit stage for this project. So I can assure council and your worship that we will be putting one-to-one replacement for all those one bedrooms. And we've already actually come up with a plan for that. I don't know if you guys have plans in front of you, but on the east side of the floor plan, There are two, what are now labeled one bachelor apartments and the aspect ratio of the floor layout actually lends itself quite well to, to a one bedroom arrangement because it's a very shallow wide unit. So the big thing with one bedrooms is you need exterior wall space. So we have two units per floor over 14 floors, which can quite easily with a bit of moving around to the hallways and shuffling of other units can be converted into one bedrooms. And that will be our approach to dealing with that problem. So I'll leave it there, and we are available for questions should any of you wish to have them for us. Thank you so much.